Section 230 was always a red herring. I personally think that if you are running social media honestly and protecting 1A, it doesnt really matter if 230 protection is removed. BTW, removing 230 protection will hurt them if they want to keep some control on other platforms.
230 protects the platform from litigation for anything people say on the platform.
If I can recall we were trying to repeal 230 because they were censoring free speech and choosing what is acceptable speech. This was our argument at the time that they were using Twitter as a social manipulation weapon.
If musk doesn't police twitter then I don't think it causes 230 to be revoked. We're relying on our patriot Supreme court judges in the future whether we keep this win.
We don't WANT social media that censors, distorts, manipulates. We do want a social media that allows free and open engagement so that in the marketplace of ideas, truth and value can rise to the top.
Section 230 was always a red herring. I personally think that if you are running social media honestly and protecting 1A, it doesnt really matter if 230 protection is removed. BTW, removing 230 protection will hurt them if they want to keep some control on other platforms.
230 protects the platform from litigation for anything people say on the platform.
If I can recall we were trying to repeal 230 because they were censoring free speech and choosing what is acceptable speech. This was our argument at the time that they were using Twitter as a social manipulation weapon.
If musk doesn't police twitter then I don't think it causes 230 to be revoked. We're relying on our patriot Supreme court judges in the future whether we keep this win.
Dunno. Sounds like a win-win to me.
We don't WANT social media that censors, distorts, manipulates. We do want a social media that allows free and open engagement so that in the marketplace of ideas, truth and value can rise to the top.
salt the earth with their QQ